کمال گرایی چندبعدی و ارتباط آنها با ویژگی های اختلال تغذیه ای
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32605||2006||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4484 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 41, Issue 2, July 2006, Pages 225–235
We explored the nature of perfectionism, to gain a better understanding of the construct and how it may relate to other psychological constructs, particularly disordered eating. Using data from 286 female participants, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of perfectionism using Frost’s Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, the Burns Perfectionism Scale, the Neurotic Perfectionism Scale, and the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised to determine if perfectionism was a unidimensional or multidimensional construct. Perfectionism was best explained as a construct consisting of three factors—normal perfectionism, neurotic perfectionism, and orderliness. Neurotic perfectionism was more highly related to bulimic symptomatology, body dissatisfaction, and self-esteem than was either normal perfectionism or order. In fact, the correlation between self-esteem and neurotic perfection was high enough to raise concerns about their discriminant validity. Findings suggest that utilizing the dimensions of perfectionism in evaluation and research may improve the ability to study meaningful relationships between aspects of perfectionism and other constructs and raise questions about the differences between neurotic perfectionism and self-esteem.
Perhaps the central feature of perfectionism is the setting of high standards, but the setting of high standards is not necessarily, by itself, pathological. Many researchers argue that perfectionism must be thought of as a multidimensional, rather than unidimensional, construct. A distinction must be made between normal or adaptive perfectionism, which allows one to pursue one’s goals, and neurotic or maladaptive perfectionism which may encompass the more detrimental aspects of perfectionism (Frost et al., 1990, Hamachek, 1978 and Mitzman et al., 1994). Hamachek described normal perfectionists as those who set high standards but are able to re-evaluate those standards when needed. The normal aspect of perfectionism allows for the setting of realistic goals and feelings of satisfaction when these goals are achieved. Neurotic perfectionism, on the other hand, typically involves the setting of unrealistically high standards and the inability to accept mistakes. The neurotic aspect of perfectionism may be driven by the fear of failure, rather than the desire to achieve, and may lead to negative feelings about oneself due to the inability to achieve true perfection (Mitzman et al., 1994). Perfectionism has theoretically been linked to many types of psychopathology, including depression, compulsive experiences, and alcoholism, as well as attitudes and behaviors associated with eating disorders (Frost et al., 1990 and Pacht, 1984). For some types of psychopathology, such as eating disorders, the association between the disorder and perfectionism has shown inconsistent findings in the literature. One possible reason for inconsistent findings is that perfectionism may be a multidimensional construct, but it is frequently researched in a unidimensional fashion. In creating the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS), Frost and colleagues reported that the dimensions of the construct as measured by the MPS had different relationships with measures of depression, obsessiveness, and procrastination and that future research should take into account the multidimensional nature of perfectionism. In studies examining factors of perfectionism, normal and neurotic perfectionism have been found to relate differentially to other psychological constructs. Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, and Neubauer (1993) conducted a factor analysis using two measures of perfectionism, the MPS of Frost et al. (1990) and the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale of Hewitt and Flett (1991, p. 124), and found a two-factor solution with factors of “maladaptive evaluation concerns” and “positive striving”, similar to the concepts of neurotic and normal perfectionism. The first factor correlated with negative affect and depression but not positive affect, and the second factor was more closely related to positive affect but not to negative affect or depression. In a structural equation analysis, Rice, Ashby, and Slaney (1998) examined the relationship between adaptive and maladaptive factors of perfectionism and self-esteem and depression. Whereas adaptive perfectionism was not related to depression either directly or indirectly, maladaptive perfectionism related negatively with self-esteem and positively with depression. Self-esteem also mediated the role between maladaptive perfectionism and depression. Further evidence of the importance of assessing the dimensions of perfectionism was found by Suddarth and Slaney (2001) in an exploratory factor analysis. Using three perfectionism scales—Frost et al.’s (1990) MPS, Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) MPS, and the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney et al., 2001a and Slaney et al., 2001b), the authors found three factors they labeled “Unhealthy Perfectionism” (i.e., neurotic perfectionism), “Healthy Perfectionism” (i.e., normal perfectionism), and “Orderliness”. This finding provides additional support for the concept of normal and neurotic factors of perfectionism, along with a third factor pertaining to an individual’s need for order. Suddarth and Slaney also found that neurotic perfectionism had significant relationships with measures of psychopathology, whereas normal perfectionism did not. Further examining the relationship between perfectionism and other psychological constructs, Stumpf and Parker (2000) found that normal perfectionism was positively correlated with conscientiousness and self-esteem and neurotic perfectionism correlated negatively with self-esteem. Neurotic perfectionism was also moderately correlated with psychological maladjustment. The findings of these studies support the idea that normal and neurotic perfectionism not only relate inconsistently with other psychological constructs but that they often relate in opposing ways. When examining the relationship between perfectionism and bulimic attitudes and behaviors, researchers have reported conflicting findings, whereas research with other risk factors, such as body dissatisfaction and low self-esteem, has shown more consistent relationships with bulimic behavior. As described above, perfectionism has been found to relate to self-esteem, and the relationship between perfectionism and body dissatisfaction has also been examined. After previous findings reported that both normal and neurotic perfectionism were positively related to body dissatisfaction, Davis (1997) found that rather than functioning in an additive manner, these aspects of perfectionism related to body esteem in an interactive fashion. When neurotic perfectionism was low, normal perfectionism was positively associated with body satisfaction; however, when levels of neurotic perfectionism were high, normal perfectionism was negatively associated with body satisfaction. Seeking to account for multiple risk factors in the development of eating disorders, Vohs, Bardone, Joiner, Abramson, and Heatherton (1999) found support for a 3-way interaction of perfectionism, self-esteem, and body dissatisfaction in predicting bulimic symptom development. However, in an effort to replicate this finding, Shaw, Stice, and Springer (2004) failed to find support for this model in predicting bulimic attitudes and behaviors, and these researchers also reported that perfectionism by itself did not predict development of bulimic symptoms. One potential explanation for these contradictory findings is that perfectionism was measured as a unidimensional construct. When comparing levels of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism between a clinical sample of women with various types of eating disorders and a group of undergraduate women, Ashby, Kottman, and Schoen (1998) found no statistically significant differences between the groups on levels of adaptive perfectionism but the clinical groups had significantly greater levels of maladaptive perfectionism. Although this study did not examine bulimia nervosa exclusively, this finding suggests that women with bulimic behaviors may differ from other women on maladaptive, or neurotic, perfectionism but not on other factors of the construct. If studying perfectionism in a unidimensional manner, researchers in this area may be overlooking this important distinction and failing to find a relationship between perfectionism and bulimic attitudes and behaviors. The first goal of this study was to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of perfectionism to determine if perfectionism was best explained as a multidimensional or a unidimensional construct. Based on previous research, we hypothesized finding the factors of normal and neurotic perfectionism, and perhaps a third factor relating to the need for order as found by Suddarth and Slaney (2001). The second goal was to examine the relationship between the factors of perfectionism and other psychological constructs, including bulimic attitudes and behaviors. We hypothesized that the dimensions of perfectionism would relate differently to these constructs, with neurotic perfectionism more highly related to pathology. Because we were interested in examining the relationship of the perfectionism factors to bulimic attitudes and behaviors and other constructs related to bulimia nervosa, we limited our sample to female college students because of the increased prevalence of eating problems among women.